You said — But is it not a benefit to the Commander in Chief to demonstrate this to the public when officers in the military begin to question his legitimacy and refuse to obey his orders during a time of war?
—
Well, I don’t know... and I may be mistaken about this idea. But, it’s that I thought that these soldiers were loyal to the Office of President of the United States, as Commander in Chief, and not so much to the person in office.
And that’s why I was thinking that they wouldn’t do anything to de-legitimize the office or the commander’s position, which might create a negative precedent for future office holders in “justifying” one thing or another...
Anyway, that’s how I would be thinking about it — in terms of an “institution” rather than a “man”...
—
It’s like this..., it’s an “institution”, we have balance of powers, laws need to be followed, procedures done in certain specified ways, and whatever needs to be changed, have the change done in a predetermined and specified way...
My thinking is sort of a long-range and strategic sort of thinking.
Yes and no. Military personnel are sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. They also swear to follow legal orders. There's where the problem comes in. If an officer legitimately believes the person giving him the order is not legally entitled to give him that order he should not follow it. And when it comes to defending the Constitution, well, the document does clearly state that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces but it also states that only a natural born citizen can attain the office of President. You see the problem, yes?
There are, apparently, officers who question his legitimacy. If they truly believe there is an issue with his legitimacy it puts them in a difficult situation and one in which they must do as their conscious guides them. At least one so far has publicly refused a deployment order. If this continues you could have a snowball effect. Regardless of what Obama sees as what he ought to have to do, he should not let it go that far. This is not what we would have the enemy see.
Personally, I think the simplest explanation is that he was born in the US. But then, I've never seen one of these COLBs before in my life and I do know that when I hear the words 'birth certificate' my mind conjurs up an image of an offically stamped document with a lot of information on it- not that sparse thing I have seen that has been posted as the President's birth certificate.
I mean if he showed us that, I'm assuming he (or whoever showed that document to the public in the first place) cared enough to try to demonstrate his facts of birth. Well, that COLB has obviously raised more questions. He ought to just show everybody the actual document and be done with it. If it wasn't any skin off his nose to show the COLB it ought not to be any trouble to show the full form birth certificate. I think that is a reasonable request.